Fault lines in STEM education

From time to time, cracks in our educational culture become glaringly visible. The latest such fissure is the dismal performance in CSEC mathematics, which has triggered waves of despair and much public hand-wringing.

The public’s assessment of the education system is heavily tied to CSEC and CAPE results. Unfortunately, many teachers lack the necessary expertise to teach mathematics and the sciences effectively. In response, some principals and teachers have pressured the examining body to lower the assessment standards in a bid to improve pass rates. This has been done through tactics like removing topics from syllabuses, recycling multiple-choice questions, and employing grade-engineering strategies such as school-based assessments that students can purchase like consumer products. However, these measures have not worked, nor can they ever truly succeed.

Science subjects boast higher pass rates than mathematics primarily because the syllabuses have been watered down into ‘Physics Lite,’ ‘Chemistry Lite,’ and ‘Biology Lite.’ Students willingly opt for these subjects, unlike mathematics, which remains mandatory. Yet even those students who excel in STEM subjects often exhibit significant gaps in competence and development.

To address this, teachers who are competent in STEM subjects should be paid more. This would necessitate a system where for each subject, we identify the required skill sets, establish clear and appropriate competence standards, and create robust mechanisms for measuring teacher competence. For instance, achieving a score on the GRE subject exam sufficient for graduate school admission, combined with a teaching diploma, could serve as a benchmark for competence in mathematics and physics.

CONFLATES

Currently, certifications is acquired within a context that conflates certification with competence rather than mandating rigorous standards of competence. Any consideration of increased pay must be tied to a cost-benefit analysis, ensuring that any increase in benefits stems from genuine improvements in competence. A degree, while indicative of potential, does not equate to competence, which requires much more.

The concept of higher pay for STEM teachers could be seen as a form of hardship allowance, acknowledging the difficulty in acquiring true competence in these fields. Mastery of STEM subjects is beyond the cognitive reach of most teachers from other disciplines, leading to resentment among those who lack the ability to achieve competence in STEM subjects.

Many teachers who pursue advanced degrees settle for programmes that demand less cognitive rigor than STEM subjects. Popular choices include Educational Leadership and Administration, Curriculum Development, and Mathematics Education. These programmes, often offered by online for-profit universities, produce programmes and certifications that are more consumer products than scholarly achievements – though they might come adorned with academic pomp. Despite this, individuals with these degrees often hold decision-making positions in the education system, making them resistant to competence-based approaches.

The Ministry of Education should establish units staffed by individuals who are both experts in their respective STEM fields and adept at teaching them. These units could offer continuous professional development through seminars and workshops to enhance the skill sets of STEM teachers.

Currently, the ministry’s approach involves deploying individuals with Bachelor of Education degrees in mathematics as “mathematics coaches” to schools across the country, ostensibly to support regular classroom teachers. However, many of these coaches need help with the subject themselves. A more effective strategy would be to have these coaches undergo rigorous training through workshops and seminars led by true mathematics experts. These coaches could then take over classes from regular teachers, allowing those teachers to participate in the same workshops and improve their skills.

BREAK THE CYCLE

This approach would break the current cycle of inadequate teaching and ensure that the country sees tangible and lasting returns on its educational investments through improved mathematics teaching and learning.

Bachelor of Education degrees are not as cognitively demanding as regular subject degrees. Education degree students are often given a variety of criteria-deficient assessments and engage in less content than those pursuing regular subject degrees. It is common for students who fail in regular subject degrees to switch to education degrees, where they find overwhelming success, as occasionally reported by newspapers.

The education landscape is thus populated by decision-makers and teachers, many of whom hold advanced degrees that demand far less cognitive effort than subject degrees in STEM.

There have been numerous calls to transition Jamaica from a low-wage, low-productivity, and low-growth economy to one characterised by high wages, high growth, and high productivity. However, an education system that only offers ‘Lite’ versions of STEM subjects cannot propel us towards that goal.

Philip A. Patterson has served as a lecturer at Shortwood and Moneague Teachers’ Colleges as well as the College of Agriculture, Science, and Education. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.